voting rights in the era of mass incarceration: a primer

1The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

Voting Rights in the Era of Mass Incarceration: A Primer

As of 2020, 5.2 million Americans were prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses.1 Voting rights vary by state, which institute a wide range of disenfranchisement policies.

Table 1. Voting Restrictions in 2021

No restriction (4) Prison (21) Prison, parole & probation (16)

Prison, parole, probation & post-sentence – some or all (11)

Maine California Alaska Alabama4

Vermont Colorado Arkansas Arizona5

District of Columbia Connecticut Georgia Delaware6

Puerto Rico Hawaii Idaho Florida7

Illinois Kansas Iowa8

Indiana Louisiana3 Kentucky9

Maryland Minnesota Mississippi10

Massachusetts Missouri Nebraska11

Michigan New Mexico Tennessee12

Montana North Carolina Virginia13

Nevada Oklahoma Wyoming14

New Hampshire South CarolinaNew Jersey South DakotaNew York Texas

North Dakota West VirginiaOhio Wisconsin

OregonPennsylvaniaRhode Island

UtahWashington2

The 11 most extreme states restrict voting rights for some or all individuals even after they have served their prison sentence and are no longer on probation or parole; such individuals make up over 58% of the entire disenfranchised population. Only Maine, Vermont, Washington DC, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico do not restrict the voting rights of anyone with a felony conviction, including those in prison.

Persons currently in prison or jail represent a minority of the total disenfranchised population. In fact, 75% of disenfranchised voters live in their communities, either under probation or parole supervision or having com-pleted their sentence. An estimated 2.2 million people

are disenfranchised due to state laws that restrict voting rights even after completion of sentences.15

Rights restoration practices vary widely across states and are subject to the turns of political climate and leadership, which has led some states to vacillate between reform and regression. In Iowa, then-Governor Vilsack issued an executive order in 2005 automatical-ly restoring the voting rights of all persons who had completed their sentences, but this order was rescind-ed in 2011 by then-Governor Branstad. In 2020, Gover-nor Reynolds signed an executive order automatically restoring voting rights to most people who have com-pleted their sentences.16


Figure A. Voting Restrictions by State, 2021

In Florida, voters passed a 2018 amendment that re-stored the voting rights of most people who had com-pleted their sentences. The following year, state legis-lators made restoration conditional on an individual’s payment of all restitution, fines, and fees, meaning only people who have paid all legal financial obligations have become eligible to vote.17 The Sentencing Project estimates that almost 900,000 people who owe legal financial obligations remain disenfranchised in the state.18 Voting rights advocates have called the move a “poll tax” and a “pay to vote” system.19

In addition to Florida, three other states (Alabama, Arizona, and Tennessee) condition eligibility for the restoration of voting rights on the repayment of legal

Puerto Rico

Washington, D.C.

No restriction

Prison

Prison, parole & probation

Prison, parole, probation, & post-sentence — some or all

financial obligations. Tennessee requires that people be up to date on all child support payments in order to regain the right to vote.20

The denial of voting rights has a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Black Americans of voting age are nearly four times as likely to lose their voting rights than the rest of the adult population, with one of every 16 Black adults disenfranchised nationally. As of 2020, in seven states – Alabama; Florida; Kentucky; Mississippi; Tennessee; Virginia; Wyoming – more than one in seven Black adults are disenfranchised. In total, 1.8 million Black citizens are banned from voting. In 34 states, the Latinx population is disenfranchised at a higher rate than the general population.21


HISTORY OF VOTING RESTRICTIONSEnglish colonists brought to North America the common law practice of “civil death,” a set of criminal penalties that included the revocation of voting rights. Early colonial laws limited the penalty of disenfranchisement to certain offenses related to voting or considered “egregious violations of the moral code.”22 After the American Revolution, states began codifying disenfran-chisement provisions and expanding the penalty to all felony offenses.23 Many states instituted felony disen-franchisement policies in the wake of the Civil War, and by 1869, 29 states had enacted such laws.24 Political scientist Ward Elliot argues that the elimination of the property test as a voting qualification may help to explain the popularity of felony disenfranchisement policies, as they served as an alternate means for wealthy elites to constrict the political power of the lower classes.25

In the post-Reconstruction period, several Southern states tailored their disenfranchisement laws in order to bar Black male voters; targeting those offenses believed to be committed most frequently by the Black population.26 For example, party leaders in Mississippi called for disenfranchisement for offenses such as burglary, theft, and arson, but not for robbery or murder.27 The author of Alabama’s disenfranchisement provision “estimated the crime of wife-beating alone would dis-qualify sixty percent of the Negroes,” resulting in a policy that would disenfranchise a man for beating his wife, but not for killing her. Such policies would endure for over a century.28 Whether or not felony disenfranchise-ment laws today are intended to reduce the political clout of communities of color, this is their undeniable effect.

LEGAL STATUSDisenfranchisement policies have met occasional legal challenges in the last century. In Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), three men from California who had served time for felony convictions sued for their right to vote, arguing that the state’s felony disenfranchise-ment policies denied them the right to equal protection

of the laws under the U.S. Constitution. Under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state cannot restrict voting rights unless it shows a compelling state inter-est. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Cal-ifornia’s felony disenfranchisement policies as consti-tutional, finding that Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows the denial of voting rights “for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” In the major-ity opinion, Justice Rehnquist found that Section 2 – which was arguably intended to protect the voting rights of freed slaves by sanctioning states that disenfran-chised them – exempts from sanction disenfranchise-ment based on a felony conviction. By this logic, the Equal Protection Clause in the previous section could not have been intended to prohibit such disenfranchise-ment policies.

Critics argue that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment does not indicate that the exemptions established in Section 2 should prohibit the application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting rights cases.29 Moreover, some contend that the Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in Richardson is incon-sistent with its previous decisions on citizenship and voting rights, in which the Court has found that the scope of the Equal Protection Clause “is not bound to the political theories of a particular era but draws much of its substance from changing social norms and evolv-ing conceptions of equality.”30 Therefore, even if the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment seemingly ac-cepted felony disenfranchisement, our interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause today should allow for the ways in which our concept of equality may have evolved since 1868.

GROWTH AND DECLINE OF THE DISENFRANCHISED POPULATIONAs states began expanding voting rights in the civil rights era, the disenfranchisement rate dropped between 1960 and 1976. Although reform efforts have been substantial in recent years, the number of people dis-enfranchised because of a felony conviction increased dramatically, rising from 1.17 million in 1976 to 6.1 million by 2016, just as mass incarceration and crimi-nalization took hold in the U.S.


individuals with felony convictions. Between 1997 and 2021, 25 states and Washington, DC expanded voter eligibility and/or informed persons with felony convic-tions of their voting rights either through legislative or executive action.34 Among these:

• In 2020, Washington, DC became the first jurisdic-tion in the country to restore voting rights for people in prison.

• Ten states either repealed or amended lifetime disenfranchisement laws since 1997.

• Ten states have expanded voting rights to some or all persons on probation and/or parole since 1997.

• Sixteen states and Washington, DC enacted voting rights reforms between 2016 and 2021, either through legislation or executive action.

DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXTAlthough they are rooted in the “civil death” tradition of medieval Europe, disenfranchisement policies in the United States today are exceptional in their severity

Figure B. Disenfranchised Population, 1960-2020

Recent state voter restoration reforms have led to a nearly 15% decline in the number of people disenfran-chised since 2016, with nearly 5.2 million people dis-enfranchised in 2020. Some jurisdictions have even begun to address voting in prison. In 2020, Washington, DC became the first jurisdiction to restore voting rights for people in prison and legislators in Oregon are con-sidering similar legislation.31 In order to strengthen democracy and address significant racial disparities, The Sentencing Project supports establishing universal voting for all citizens impacted by the criminal legal system.32

POLICY REFORMS IN RECENT YEARSPublic opinion surveys report that a clear majority of U.S. residents support voting rights for citizens who have completed their sentence. In a 2018 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of both Democrats and Re-publicans supported re-enfranchisement.33 In recent years, heightened public awareness of voting restric-tions has resulted in successful state-level reform efforts, from legislative changes expanding voting rights to grassroots voter registration initiatives targeting

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

20202014200820021996199019841978197219661960

1,762,582

1,176,254

3,342,586

4,686,539

5,358,282

5,852,1806,106,327

5,177,780

Source: Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project.

5The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org 5

Table 2. Restoring Voting Rights in the Era of Mass Incarceration, 1997-2021State Change

Alabama Streamlined restoration for most persons upon completion of sentence (2003); codified list of felony offenses that result in disenfranchisement (2017)

Arizona Removed requirement to pay outstanding fines before rights are automatically restored for people convict-ed of first-time felony offenses after completion of court-imposed sentence (2019)

California Restored voting rights to people convicted of a felony offense housed in jail, but not in prison (2016); Restored voting rights for people on parole (2020)

Colorado Restored voting rights to persons on parole (2019)

ConnecticutRestored voting rights to persons on probation (2001); repealed requirement to present proof of restoration in order to register after completing a prison term or parole (2006); restored voting rights to people on parole (2021)

DelawareRepealed lifetime disenfranchisement, replaced with five-year waiting period for persons convicted of most offenses (2000); repealed five-year waiting period for most offenses (2013); Eliminated requirement that people pay all legal financial obligations after completion of their sentence to regain voting rights (2016)

District of Columbia Restored voting rights to people in prison (2020)

Florida

Simplified clemency process (2004, 2007); adopted requirement for county jail officials to assist with restoration (2006); reversed modification in clemency process (2011); Restored voting rights to most residents after sentence completion (2018); Passed legislation requiring persons to pay all legal financial obligations after completion of court-imposed prison, probation, or parole sentence to have voting rights restored (2019)

Hawaii Codified data sharing procedures for removal and restoration process for people who have completed a prison term (2006)

IowaRestored voting rights post-sentence via executive order (2005); rescinded executive order (2011); simpli-fied application process (2016); restored voting rights to people who have completed their sentences, except for those convicted of homicide, by executive order (2020)

Kentucky

Simplified restoration process (2001, 2008); restricted restoration process (2004, amended in 2008); restored voting rights post-sentence for non-violent felony convictions via executive order (2015); rescinded executive order (2015); restored voting rights post-sentence for non-violent felony convictions via executive order (2019)

LouisianaRequired Department of Public Safety and Corrections to provide notification of rights restoration process (2008); Authorized voting for residents who have not been incarcerated for five years including persons on felony probation or parole (2018)

Maryland Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement (2007); restored voting rights to persons on probation and parole (2016)

Nebraska Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement, replaced with two-year waiting period (2005)

Nevada

Repealed five-year waiting period (2001); restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time non-vio-lent offenses (2003); Restored voting rights to people dishonorably discharged from probation or parole, allowed people convicted of category B offenses to have their rights restored after two-year waiting period (2017); Restored voting rights to persons on probation and parole (2019)

New Jersey Established procedures requiring state criminal justice agencies to notify persons of their voting rights when released (2010); restored voting rights to persons on probation and parole (2019

New Mexico Repealed lifetime disenfranchisement by restoring voting rights to people upon completion of sentence (2001); codified data sharing procedures, certificate of completion provided after sentence (2005)

New YorkRequired criminal justice agencies to provide voting rights information to persons who are again eligible to vote after a felony conviction (2010); restored voting rights to persons on parole via executive order (2018); passed bill restoring voting rights to persons on parole (2021)

North Carolina Required state agencies to establish a process whereby individuals will be notified when their voting rights are restored upon completion of sentence (2007)

Rhode Island Restored voting rights to persons on probation and parole (2006)

South DakotaEstablished new procedures to provide training and develop voter education curriculum to protect the voting rights of citizens with certain felony convictions (2010); revoked voting rights for persons on felony probation (2012)


Tennessee Streamlined restoration process for most persons upon completion of sentence (2006)

Texas Repealed two-year waiting period to restore rights (1997)

Utah Clarified state law pertaining to federal and out-of-state convictions, re-enfranchising people residing in Utah but convicted out-of-state or in federal courts (2006)

Virginia

Required notification of rights and restoration process by Department of Corrections (2000); streamlined restoration process (2002); decreased waiting period for non-violent offenses from three years to two years and established a 60-day deadline to process voting rights restoration applications (2010); eliminated waiting period and application for non-violent offenses (2013); restored voting rights post-sentence via executive order (2016); restored voting rights to over 69,000 people who have completed their prison sentences but are still on probation via executive order (2021)

Washington Restored voting rights for persons who exit the criminal justice system but still have outstanding financial obligations (2009); restored voting rights to people on probation and parole - bill takes effect in 2022 (2021)

Wyoming

Restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time non-violent offenses (2003); authorized automatic rights restoration for persons convicted of first-time non-violent felony offenses who apply and receive a certificate of voting rights restoration (2015); removed application process and automatically restored voting rights to persons convicted of first-time non-violent felony offenses who have completed their community supervision (2017)

and the restriction of the voting rights of people who have completed their prison terms or were never incar-cerated at all.35 While in the United States, only Maine, Vemont, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico allow citizens to vote from prison, the European Court of Human Rights determined in 2005 that a blanket ban on voting from prison violates the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free and fair elections.36 Indeed, almost half of European countries allow all incarcerated individuals to vote, facilitating voting within the prison or by absentee ballot.37 In Canada, Israel, and South Africa, constitu-tional courts have ruled that any conviction-based re-striction of voting rights is unconstitutional.

IMPACT OF VOTING RESTRICTIONSResearch suggests that restoring voting rights to people impacted by the criminal legal system could aid their transition back into community life. The revocation of voting rights for people with felony convictions com-pounds isolation from communities, even though civic participation has been linked with lower recidivism rates. In one study, among individuals who had been arrested previously, 27% of non-voters were rearrested, compared with 12% of voters.38 Although the limitations of the data available preclude proof of direct causation, it is clear that “voting appears to be part of a package of pro-social behavior that is linked to desistance from crime.”39

CONCLUSIONThe dramatic growth of the U.S. prison population and the corresponding reach of the criminal legal system over the last 40 years has led to high levels of disen-franchisement unparalleled among democratic nations. Nationwide, these policies disenfranchised an estimat-ed 5.2 million adults in 2020. Disenfranchisement pol-icies vary widely by state, ranging from no restrictions on voting to a lifetime ban upon conviction. Voting rights restrictions have potentially affected the out-comes of U.S. elections, particularly as disenfranchise-ment policies disproportionately impact people of color. Nationwide, as of 2020 one in every 16 Black adults could not vote as the result of a felony conviction, and in seven states more than one in seven Black adults was disenfranchised. Felony disenfranchisement laws remain a serious structural barrier to racial justice in this country.

Denying the right to vote to an entire class of citizens is deeply problematic, undemocratic, and counterpro-ductive to effective reentry. Fortunately, many states are reconsidering their archaic disenfranchisement policies, with half of states and the District of Columbia enacting reforms since 1997. But there is still much to be done before the United States will resemble com-parable nations in allowing, honoring and promoting the full democratic participation of its citizens.


This briefing paper was written by Jean Chung, Communications Manager at The Sentencing Project. Updated July 2021 by Kevin Muhitch, Research Fellow at The Sentencing Project.

The Sentencing Project promotes effective and humane responses to crime that minimize imprisonment and criminalization of youth and adults by promoting racial, ethnic, economic, and gender justice.

1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th FloorWashington, D.C. 20036

sentencingproject.org

1 Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/

2 In 2021, Washington passed legislation to restore voting rights to people on probation and parole. The change will take effect on January 1, 2022. Washington House Bill 1078. (2021). https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?-billnumber=1078&year=2021

3 Louisiana – In 2019, authorized voting for residents under an order of im-prisonment for a felony who have not been incarcerated for five years, in-cluding those on probation and parole.

4 Alabama - In 2016, legislation eased the rights restoration process after completion of sentence for persons not convicted of a crime of “moral turpitude.” The state codified the list of felony offenses that are ineligible for re-enfranchisement in 2017.

5 Arizona - Permanently disenfranchises persons with two or more felony convictions. In 2019, removed the requirement to pay outstanding fines before rights are automatically restored for first time felony offenses only.

6 Delaware – In 2013, removed the five-year waiting period to regain voting eligibility. Apart from some disqualifying offenses, people convicted of a felony are now eligible to vote upon completion of sentence and supervision.

7 Florida – In 2018, voters passed an amendment to restore voting rights to most people after sentence completion. In 2019, legislation was passed that made restoration conditional on payment of all restitution, fees, and fines. As of October, 2020, only the rights of those who had paid all legal financial obligations (fines and fees) had been restored.

8 Iowa – In 2020, Governor Reynolds signed an executive order restoring voting rights to people who have completed their sentences, except for those convicted of homicide. This follows previous executive orders from Governor Vilsack (restoring voting rights to individuals who had completed their sentences in 2005) and Governor Branstad (reversing this executive order in 2011).

9 Kentucky – In 2019, Governor A. Beshear issued an executive order restor-ing voting rights to those who had completed sentences for nonviolent offenses. This follows a similar 2015 executive order by Governor S. Beshear, which had been rescinded by Governor Bevin later that year.

10 Mississippi – Permanently disenfranchises individuals convicted of certain offenses.

11 Nebraska – In 2005, Reduced its indefinite ban on post-sentence voting to a two-year waiting period.

12 Tennessee - Disenfranchises those convicted of certain felonies since 1981, in addition to those convicted of select crimes prior to 1973. Others must apply to the Board of Probation and Parole for restoration.

13 Virginia – In 2019, Governor Northam reported that his administration has restored voting rights to 22,205 Virginians previously convicted of felonies. Governor McAuliffe had earlier restored rights to 173,166.

14 Wyoming – In 2017, restored voting rights after five years to people who complete sentences for first-time, non-violent felony convictions.

15 Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/

16 Sostaric, K. (2020, August 5). Governor acts to restore voting rights to Iowans with felony convictions. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/05/899284703/governor-acts-to-restore-voting-rights-to-iowans-with-past-felony-convic-tions?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e2f996b9-6c74-4bd4-9946-854c9813783f

17 Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/; Florida Senate Bill 7066, (2019). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/07066

18 Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/.

19 Breslow, J. (2020, May 24). Federal judge rules Florida law restricting voting rights for felons unconstitutional. NPR. https://www.npr.

ENDNOTESorg/2020/05/24/861776313/federal-judge-rules-florida-law-restricting-vot-ing-rights-for-felons-unconstitut; Anderson, C. (2020, September 11). Judges: Florida felons can’t vote until they pay fines, fees. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/florida-voting-rights-elections-courts-vot-ing-b4f68dd4f11a6df4430fbdc74ae93de3



22 Ewald, A. (2002). “Civil death”: The ideological paradox of criminal disen-franchisement law in the United States. Wisconsin Law Review, 2002(5), 1045-1137.

23 Behrens, A., Uggen, C., & Manza, J. (2003). Ballot manipulation and the “menace of Negro domination”: Racial threat and felon disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 559-605.

24 Liles, W.W. (2007). Challenges to felony disenfranchisement laws: Past, present, and future. Alabama Law Review, 58(3), 615-629.

25 Elliott, W. E. Y. (1974). The rise of guardian democracy: The Supreme Court’s role in voting rights disputes, 1845-1969. Harvard University Press.

26 Holloway, P. (2009). ‘A chicken-stealer shall lose his vote’: Disenfranchisement for larceny in the South, 1874-1890. Journal of Southern History, 75(4), 931-962.

27 Mauer, M. (2002). Mass imprisonment and the disappearing voters. In Mauer, M. & Chesney-Lind, M. (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral conse-quences of mass imprisonment (pp. 50-58). The New Press.

28 Shapiro, A. (1993). Challenging criminal disenfranchisement under the Voting Rights Act: A new strategy. Yale Law Journal, 103(2), 537-566.

29 Shapiro, D. (1976). Mr. Justice Rehnquist: A preliminary view. Harvard Law Review, 90(2), 335.

30 Tribe, L. (1988). American constitutional law (2nd ed.). Foundation Press.31 D.C. Law 23-277. Restore the Vote Amendment Act of 2020. (2020). https://

code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/laws/23-277.html; Oregon House Bill 2366. (2021). https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Measures/Overview/HB2366

32 Muhitch, K. & Ghandnoosh, N. (2021). Expanding voting rights to all citizens in the era of mass incarceration. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/expanding-voting-rights-to-all-citizens-in-the-era-of-mass-incarceration/

33 Bialik, K. (2018, November 15). How Americans view some of the voting policies approved at the ballot box. Fact Tank: Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/15/how-americans-view-some-of-the-voting-policies-approved-at-the-ballot-box/; Manza, J., Brooks, C., & Uggen, C. (2004). Public attitudes towards felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(2), 275-286.

34 McLeod, M. (2018). Expanding the vote: Two decades of felony disenfran-chisement reforms. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/expanding-vote-two-decades-felony-disenfranchisement-re-forms/

35 Ewald, A. & Rottinghaus, B. (2009). Introduction. In Ewald, A. & Rottinghaus, B. (Eds). Criminal disenfranchisement in an international perspective (pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press.

36 Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2), 681 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2005).37 Ispahani, L. (2009). Voting rights and human rights: A comparative analysis

of criminal disenfranchisement laws. In A. Ewald & B. Rottinghaus (Eds). Criminal disenfranchisement in an international perspective (pp. 25-58). Cambridge University Press.

38 Uggen, C. & Manza, J. (2004). Voting and subsequent crime and arrest: Evidence from a community sample. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 36(1), 193-215.

39 Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony convic-tion. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/

voting rights in the era of mass incarceration: a primer

Documents